- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 00:37:28 +0100
- To: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Karl Dubost, Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:43:47 -0400: > Sam, Leif, > > Le 27 mars 2010 à 13:02, Leif Halvard Silli a écrit : >> Karl: I hope you eventually will confirm that you stand by that claim >> ... ;-) > > yes, explanation below. > >> The typographic feature "line-through" can either be "just" that. Or it >> can be a signal which tells a story about the edition history that a >> particular text has gone through. Or it can be something "in between". > > Yes but that statement is true for many elements. The "in between"? Yes. > Sam's original > question was not clear enough and slightly not related to > accessibility and even semantics. I could do exactly the same kind of > statement with the alt attribute. > > I can choose to put alt="" on a photograph because from my publisher > point of view, I think it is just decorative. I'm just making an > editorial choice like the choice of a word. <b> is allowed per HTML5. Should it only permit <strong>? > Then Sam tried to clarify by giving options > http://www.w3.org/mid/4BAE19C5.4070503@intertwingly.net > > * The Conformance Requirements for authors is incomplete > * The claims are not justified or hit the wrong target As told in my previous message to this list, <strike> is fairly well supported by a group of user agents which the accessibility have used a little bit: text based browsers - a tiny bit better supported than <del>. I also think that it is possible to transmit, in a screenreader, that the text is striked over. > Le 27 mars 2010 à 10:44, Sam Ruby a écrit : >> As near as I can tell, the use of the <strike> element was not by >> Mark himself, but was allowed through whatever gauntlet of >> sanitization filters that he employed at the time. > > I relate that to a design flaw of many CMS. Basically it is quite > easy to deliver a site which is valid, accessible, SEO friendly, etc. > Very often, there are no tools for maintaining the quality. CMS needs > a feedback loop. When I publish, I either sanitize (done most of the > time for security, not for markup quality), or I give feedback to the > person that the written markup is not correct. > > One size doesn't fit all. Some users need a markup validity check > feedback, some users are just not tech savy and in this case, the > system *should* take care of it. Unfortunately for me, here, I used > should. :) Should the commenter in this case not have been allowed put a strike over the text? -- leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 27 March 2010 23:38:03 UTC